Lavern D. Bonin v. Ryan Marine Services, Inc.
Date Decided: February 17th, 2011
Originally Filed in: Texas (federal)
Decided by: U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (Federal)
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Judge: Judge Reavley, Judge Dennis, Judge Clement
Citation: 2011 WL 573520
Background:
Plaintiff Lavern D. Bonin ("Bonin") brought claims against his employer, Ryan Marine Services, Inc. ("Ryan Marine") alleging injuries under the general maritime law, and the Jones Act.
Bonin was employed by Ryan Marine as a deckhand on board the M/V RMS CITATION ("the Vessel"). In the course of detaching the Vessel from a work platform located on the shore, Captain Bill Cox ("Captain Cox") ordered Bonin and another deckhand to retrieve a mooring line securing the Vessel's anchor cable to a cable attached to the platform. Bonin claimed that while attempting to carry out Captain Cox's order, he injured his left shoulder and can no longer work as a deckhand in the offshore industry.
The District Court held that Captain Cox was negligent in ordering Bonin to retrieve the mooring line thereby creating an unseaworthy vessel which caused Bonin's injury, and awarded him $200,000 dollars in damages.
Ryan Marine appealed the District Court's ruling alleging there was insufficient evidence to conclude (1) Captain Cox was negligent; (2) that Captain Cox's negligence was the proximate cause of Bonin's injury; and (3) that Bonin was entitled to $200,000 dollars in damages.
Plaintiff Lavern D. Bonin ("Bonin") brought claims against his employer, Ryan Marine Services, Inc. ("Ryan Marine") alleging injuries under the general maritime law, and the Jones Act.
Bonin was employed by Ryan Marine as a deckhand on board the M/V RMS CITATION ("the Vessel"). In the course of detaching the Vessel from a work platform located on the shore, Captain Bill Cox ("Captain Cox") ordered Bonin and another deckhand to retrieve a mooring line securing the Vessel's anchor cable to a cable attached to the platform. Bonin claimed that while attempting to carry out Captain Cox's order, he injured his left shoulder and can no longer work as a deckhand in the offshore industry.
The District Court held that Captain Cox was negligent in ordering Bonin to retrieve the mooring line thereby creating an unseaworthy vessel which caused Bonin's injury, and awarded him $200,000 dollars in damages.
Ryan Marine appealed the District Court's ruling alleging there was insufficient evidence to conclude (1) Captain Cox was negligent; (2) that Captain Cox's negligence was the proximate cause of Bonin's injury; and (3) that Bonin was entitled to $200,000 dollars in damages.
Issues:
Was the District Court's ruling clearly erroneous as to (1) Captain Cox's negligence; (2) Captain Cox's negligence as the proximate cause of Bonin's injury; and (3) the award of damages?
Was the District Court's ruling clearly erroneous as to (1) Captain Cox's negligence; (2) Captain Cox's negligence as the proximate cause of Bonin's injury; and (3) the award of damages?
Held:
(1) No, the appellate court upheld the District Court's finding of negligence.
The standard of care for Jones Act negligence is "ordinary prudence under the circumstances." Here, the facts show Captain Cox ordered Bonin to retrieve the anchor line at night and in heavy seas. The facts also show that the platform from which Bonin was working was unsecured by lifelines or guardrails, and that the mooring line was water logged and taught with the pitching and rolling of the vessel. The court reasoned that conditions present when Captain Cox gave the order to retrieve the mooring line were such that he should have ordered it cut.
Ryan Marine contends that the only witnesses to the injury, Bonin and the other deckhand, do not have the expertise to testify to Captain Cox's negligence, but the court rejected this argument taking note of the mens' combined 55 years' experience working on vessels.
(2) No, the appellate court upheld the District Court's finding of proximate cause.
Ryan Marine argues that Captain Cox's order was not the cause of Bonin's injury because Captain Cox instructed him to detach the mooring line in the safest way possible while Bonin testified he was injured detaching the mooring line a different way. The court rejected this argument reasoning that the proximate cause of Bonin's injury was not the manner in which he detached the line, but that he was ordered to detach it at all when the standard of care indicates the order should have been to cut the line.
(3) No, the appellate court upheld the award of damages.
Here, the court rejected Ryan Marine's argument that Bonin had a pre-existing condition barring him from receiving past or future wages reasoning a doctor's testimony of Bonin's good health before the injury and an economists calculation of Bonin's lost wages was sufficient to give the District Court adequate evidence on which to base the award.
AFFIRMED
(1) No, the appellate court upheld the District Court's finding of negligence.
The standard of care for Jones Act negligence is "ordinary prudence under the circumstances." Here, the facts show Captain Cox ordered Bonin to retrieve the anchor line at night and in heavy seas. The facts also show that the platform from which Bonin was working was unsecured by lifelines or guardrails, and that the mooring line was water logged and taught with the pitching and rolling of the vessel. The court reasoned that conditions present when Captain Cox gave the order to retrieve the mooring line were such that he should have ordered it cut.
Ryan Marine contends that the only witnesses to the injury, Bonin and the other deckhand, do not have the expertise to testify to Captain Cox's negligence, but the court rejected this argument taking note of the mens' combined 55 years' experience working on vessels.
(2) No, the appellate court upheld the District Court's finding of proximate cause.
Ryan Marine argues that Captain Cox's order was not the cause of Bonin's injury because Captain Cox instructed him to detach the mooring line in the safest way possible while Bonin testified he was injured detaching the mooring line a different way. The court rejected this argument reasoning that the proximate cause of Bonin's injury was not the manner in which he detached the line, but that he was ordered to detach it at all when the standard of care indicates the order should have been to cut the line.
(3) No, the appellate court upheld the award of damages.
Here, the court rejected Ryan Marine's argument that Bonin had a pre-existing condition barring him from receiving past or future wages reasoning a doctor's testimony of Bonin's good health before the injury and an economists calculation of Bonin's lost wages was sufficient to give the District Court adequate evidence on which to base the award.
AFFIRMED
Comments:
The Jones Act requires that an employer provide a safe place to work. There is no question that working offshore can be very dangerous; however, it is the captain's duty to recognize when conditions are such that carrying out a normal function cannot be done safely. When the captain, or other supervising crewmember, fails to recognize these conditions and orders a crewmember to perform a function that could be done differently [a more safer], negligence can be found.
The Jones Act requires that an employer provide a safe place to work. There is no question that working offshore can be very dangerous; however, it is the captain's duty to recognize when conditions are such that carrying out a normal function cannot be done safely. When the captain, or other supervising crewmember, fails to recognize these conditions and orders a crewmember to perform a function that could be done differently [a more safer], negligence can be found.
<< PREVNEXT >>
